Gay Marriage Poll

CNN/ USA poll ^ | June 27-29, 2003 | CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll

[VRWC_minion]

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. June 27-29, 2003. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
						.
"Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"
		Should Be Valid	Should Not Be	No Opinion
		%	%	%
	6/03	39	55	6
	1/00	34	62	4
	2/99	35	62	3
	3/096	27	68	5

 

[Bigg Red]

Not good. We need the DOMA.

[y2k_free_radical]

Our country is slowly going immoral

[Bluntpoint]

I thought they spelled pole (poll) wrong.

[thinktwice]

From the Will Durant books, "The story of Civilization," the institution of marriage was a consequence of individual ownership of property, which was itself a consequence of nation-state formation. The private ownership of property led to a desire to pass that property to heirs when the owner died.

Before that, the concept of individuals owning property was non existent; clans and tribes took care of local defense matters.

[VRWC_minion]

We need the DOMA

DOMA is DOA.

Gay marriage will be with us very shortly. They momentum is on their side. If we are smart we would create some sort of legal safe harbor for it before the courts do so.

[Nowhere Man]

I don't feel comfortable about it, but sometimes it would be better if we leave the Boston to Washington DC corridor and the extreme "left coast" (LA to Frisco) to the liberals and libertines and just break away with the rest. I think Walter Williams is right, I think the chasm between us and the libertines has gotten so wide that we need a divorce. I think it might come down to that someday. Liberals and conservatives, well that's one segregation I can live with.

[stevio]

The is no other way to argue against this except that it is
against God's law. This is sad, the greatest nation in the history of the world is going the way of Sodom and Gomorrah.

[VRWC_minion]

The "divorce" wont' be along physical barriers. It will emerge along social ones.

[Rudder]

Want a safe harbor? Marry someone of the opposite sex.

I cannot see what the big deal is. If homosexuals want to marry same-sexed porcupines...so what?

How, specifically, does homosexual marriage threaten heterosexual marriage?

This is all a distraction away from really important issues, IMHO.

[longtermmemmory]

there are more than enough reasons to argue agains homosexual marriage that do not involve religion. It only requires the slightest effort.

[Kahonek]

"We need the DOMA."

DOMA has been passed. It was signed by William Jefferson Clinton, himself.

[Rudder]

I cannot see what the big deal is. If homosexuals want to marry same-sexed porcupines...so what?

How, specifically, does homosexual marriage threaten heterosexual marriage?

[VRWC_minion]

I cannot see what the big deal is.

Putting aside that many folks believe that this is a huge social issue, the economics alone should be of interest to you.

Recognizing marriage will have a profound impact on social spending, income taxes, estate taxes and property deeds.

It will create huge loopholes for tax avoidance and possibly eliminate benefits married couples currently have , such as their not being a tax on assets exchanged between them. All I need to is enter into a civil union with the person I want to sell to and there is no income tax on the gain.

Health benefits for spouses will be at risk. Look for companies to use this as an excuse to avoid insuring spoues, especially with the added costs incurred in picking up someone with aids.

Divorce courts will become even more overtaxed while gays slug out property settlements and child support.

Like it or not, its an issue that has far more ramifications than getting your dog registered or having your car registered at MV.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Whoops I think I logged into DU by accident. Sorry.

[Clint N. Suhks]

Funny, these recent figures fall below the Quinnipiac poll where 58% find homosexuality “immoral,” I wonder why CNN’s poll is different?

[VRWC_minion]

Funny, these recent figures fall below the Quinnipiac poll where 58% find homosexuality “immoral,” I wonder why CNN’s poll is different?

It makes sense. In this poll 55% say they shouldn't be married.

[Rudder]

Well, if it's all about money and taxation then I guess homosexual marriages do threaten the status quo of government coffers. A limited partnership would also do the same.

But I still don't see how these types of unions will threaten heterosexuals (it may even keep the homosexuals out of the rest areas and off the streets.) That is, I don't see how homosexual immorality will rub off on heterosexuals, a scenario the fear of which many have expressed. Their unions will be sterile (I'm against homosexuals adopting kids--maybe that's where our effort should lie).

In short, why waste our time fretting over this?

[VRWC_minion]

Well, if it's all about money and taxation then I guess homosexual marriages do threaten the status quo of government coffers. A limited partnership would also do the same.

Not even close. The extent of the changes that a marriage would effect are far reaching economically. An LP doesn't come close.

[VRWC_minion]

But I still don't see how these types of unions will threaten heterosexuals

You are missing that the marriage contract is really a three party contract, not a two party contract. In exchange for recognizing the husband and wife's marriage contract the state puts obligations on the parties to the contract.

If the state opens up this contract to gays, it starts the process of decreased expectations on that contract. The fear is that the marriage contract will loose its meaning over time.

when I first started thinking about this issue, I had the same view you did. But as I projected into the future, the social conservatives are probably right. This will be the start of a trend that isn't good.

Their is a way to circumvent this and its to get ahead of the curve and create a form a marriage separate but economically equal. however that won't happen. The politico's won't take the income hit and eventually the courts will impose this.

[Clint N. Suhks]

How, specifically, does homosexual marriage threaten heterosexual marriage?

It threatens the traditional family unit by giving governmental sanction instead of shame. It’s EXACTLY analogous to the “sexual revolution’s” contribution to the lost stigma and shame of out of wedlock pregnancy and its affect on society. Homosexual marriage will change the culture’s perception of what is the ideal family unit and the mores that come from that tradition by increasing the frequency of this chosen behavior. The more people taught to be homosexual the more chaos it brings to society.

This is all a distraction away from really important issues, IMHO.

What’s more important than family?

[Clint N. Suhks]

It makes sense. In this poll 55% say they shouldn't be married.

Not really, it’s a big leap to go from “immoral” to sanctioning marriage. Seems like there should be some middle ground between the two polls.

[Rudder]

The more people taught to be homosexual the more chaos it brings to society.

You're kidding, right? Do you really believe you can teach someone to become homosexual? I'll bet you one trillion dollars you, or anyone else, cannot teach me, or any other heterosexual, to become homosexual.

While homsexuality may be immoral and a biological disaster it is not contagious.

[AntiGuv]

Not really, it’s a big leap to go from “immoral” to sanctioning marriage. Seems like there should be some middle ground between the two polls.

The Quinnipiac University poll is irrelevant because it only polled Pennsylvania voters. For some strange reason, the Quinnipiac poll has been quoted on FR over & over as if it were a nationwide poll of all adults.....

[DAnconia55]

Fags doom nations. Several thousand years of history has taught us this

Some of us don't read history books written by the 700 Club. Imagine that!

[DAnconia55]

I don't feel comfortable about it, but sometimes it would be better if we leave the Boston to Washington DC corridor and the extreme "left coast" (LA to Frisco) to the liberals and libertines and just break away with the rest. I think Walter Williams is right,

Walter Williams is a libertarian :)

[DAnconia55]

This is sad, the greatest nation in the history of the world is going the way of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Not yet. No 'holy man' has offered up his daughters for gangbang rape by the village.

[Clint N. Suhks]

You're kidding, right? Do you really believe you can teach someone to become homosexual?

Of course. Since it’s a chosen behavior it has to be taught. How do you think so called “bisexuals” find their perversion…because they were born that way?

I'll bet you one trillion dollars you, or anyone else, cannot teach me, or any other heterosexual, to become homosexual.

Not be to prison have you? Pay up please!

biological disaster

Behavioral pathologies are are not biological.

[DAnconia55]

You are missing that the marriage contract is really a three party contract, not a two party contract. In exchange for recognizing the husband and wife's marriage contract the state puts obligations on the parties to the contract.

Hey, I got a novel idea. Let's go back to making marriage entirely a religious ceremony. And get the interfering slave manufacturing government out of the picture...

[Clint N. Suhks]

The Quinnipiac University poll is irrelevant because it only polled Pennsylvania voters.

This one was national, the Santorum poll was just PA.

[VRWC_minion]

Not really, it’s a big leap to go from “immoral” to sanctioning marriage. Seems like there should be some middle ground between the two polls.

I expected the opposite to happen. I expected that eve if it were immoral that the majority would say let them marry. Evidentally there is more going on in the descision process than whether its moral or immoral.

[mict42]

There is something Queer about these poll numbers.

[AntiGuv]

The QU Daily indicates otherwise:

Voters say 58 - 27 percent that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. But voters say 45 -- 35 percent that homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal.

From May 13 - 20, Quinnipiac University surveyed 952 Pennsylvania registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percent. The survey includes 338 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 5.3 percent.

[VRWC_minion]

Do you really believe you can teach someone to become homosexual?

A search I did on google that I did recently has given me pause to accept that it cannot be taught. I searched "age of consent" and about half of the hits were gay sites.

It has cause me to wonder why the age of consent is such an important topic to gays.

[VRWC_minion]

Hey, I got a novel idea. Let's go back to making marriage entirely a religious ceremony.

I too held the same idea once. After further thought I wondered why such a concept as a 3 way contract where ths state is a party came about. There had to be practical reasons.

Then I saw that the state has a vested interest in many aspects of the marriage contract which include the children's welfare and a dependent spouse.

If we remove from marriage the obligations imposed upon the spouses, the state will be forced to accept these obligations. In addition to the huge financial cost the social costs will be extensive.

[AntiGuv]

It has cause me to wonder why the age of consent is such an important topic to gays.

I can answer this for you. Because in many states and/or nations, the age of consent laws have been different for opposite-sex & same-sex relations. It's considered another form of antigay discrimination & is a high priority at least amongst international activists (especially since many nations which have long-since repealed sodomy laws still have disparate age-of-consent laws - usually 21 for same-sex & 16 for opposite-sex - as their only remaining discriminatory statute, aside from marriage).

[VRWC_minion]

Why the need to find out if one can have sex with anyone udner 18 if not for recruiting ?

[AntiGuv]

If age of consent laws were set at 21 years for opposite-sex relations, do you not think that straights would protest?? In fact, since you bring that up, in many cases where age-of-consent has been lowered from 21 to 18 for same-sex relations, even though opposite-sex relations are 16 or lower (such as happened in Britain), this took much momentum out of the reform movement.

As you surely are aware, the ultimate objective of the gay activist movement is to achieve a vision where not a single discriminatory statute exists anywhere that distinguishes on the basis of sexuality. This is another dimension of that. The contention has been that age-of-consent laws should set a uniform age-of-consent without regard or remark to the sex of the couple.

[VRWC_minion]

I think you are being disingenious.

18 is the age of majority in all states. Why is it so important for gays to lower the ages to 14 in some states.

I would agree with you if their mission was to cause the age of consent to be raised for opposite sex sex.

Quite frankly, I think its disgusting for anyone a8 or above, same sex or not, to desire sex with someone under 18.

so, it gives me pause. What is the real motive. Aren't there enough adult partners to choose from or does havign sex with a minor bring some special excitement ?

[AntiGuv]

I think you are being disingenious.

I am not. I've studied the history of the gay activist movement from its modern nascency during the late 18th Century & mid 19th Century revolutionary periods, and my remarks are quite accurate.

18 is the age of majority in all states. Why is it so important for gays to lower the ages to 14 in some states.

It is important to gays that no discriminatory statutes exist, as I already stated. Moreover, this movement is most prevalent in Europe wherever a general same-sex sodomy statute had been struck down that left in place a separate statute criminalizing same-sex sodomy below age 21 or 18, when age-of-consent for opposite sex vaginal/anal intercourse had been set at 16 or 15.

I would agree with you if their mission was to cause the age of consent to be raised for opposite sex sex.

This has happened in a few cases were age-of-consent was raised from 14 to 16 for opposite-sex relations while decreased from 18 or 19 to 16 for same-sex relations. The Netherlands pops to mind for some reason.

Quite frankly, I think its disgusting for anyone a8 or above, same sex or not, to desire sex with someone under 18.

In nearly all cases, there is a distinction made on the basis of age differential. By example, 16 is the age of consent so long as the older partner is not more than 2 or 4 years older. There's usually an absolute cutoff at 14, an intermediate threshold at 16, and a final threshold at 18 after which full consent is acquired (except in those cases where it remains 21 for same-sex relations).

so, it gives me pause. What is the real motive. Aren't there enough adult partners to choose from or does havign sex with a minor bring some special excitement?

Since in almost all cases, the only 'partners' impacted would be those no older than age 21 [in that case coupled with a 17 y.o.], I doubt this would be the real motive. All evidence suggests that the real motive is that which I've described.

Having sex with a minor self-evidently brings some special excitement to all pedophiles, regardless of sexuality. I wouldn't know from personal experience, since I'm generally drawn to women right about my age.

[VRWC_minion]

In short, they gays want the age of consent lowered, just to make it fair. If they didn't care to have sex with minors in the first place, I still cannot understand their cause. If they want symboiism then they should argue to raise the male-female age to what there is. That is the only posistion that is consistant with asking for pure equality and avoid claims they have other interests in mind.

Thanks for the explanation and the reasoning. When the trend is that the age of consent is being limited to certain relationships for heterosexual sex, you have managed to actually solidify my suspicions about the gays motives. Instead of joining the current motion that society is putting on the age of consent, older gays are interested in having sex with minors and some laws prevent this. To combat that they are hiding behind the concept of equality.

This then raises questions for me reagrding the premise that gays are not created while young.

[AntiGuv]

Anyhow, if you review the Legal Age of Consent at this webpage I just searched up, you'll see this impacts very few states. Specifically, Nevada & New Hampshire and perhaps Colorado. Also Kansas from states where general sodomy statutes were recently overturned. Strangely enough, it appears New Mexico has an age-of-consent of 13 for same-sex and 17 for opposite-sex relations. If true, that should get equalized to 17..

[lawdude]

"We need the DOMA."

And just what is DOMA?

[Dilly]

"And just what is DOMA?"

DOMA is just more federal interference in state affairs.

[VRWC_minion]

see this impacts very few states.

Which makes the gays keen interest in these ages all the more suspect. How many heterosexual's walk around with the age of consent freshly printed off their favorite web site ?

[VRWC_minion]

Defense of Marriage ACT/Amendment.

Like it needs defending. I think it needs a better name.

[VRWC_minion]

Interesting letter from that site. Looks like I'm not the only one who wonders out loud about the "age of consent" motives.

---

The Original Email - April 2002:
To whom it may concern,

I recieved a link to your site a couple of months ago while in an internet chat room. Let me just say, as a gay youth (I'm only 20) and a democrat (even though we typically believe in the right to chose your path rather sexually or abortion-wise.), I found your site very offensive!.Although you are exercising your right to free speech, I feel that this site is a site that I would picture a pevert going to. It seems to me that older men come on this site just to see what states they can go to, so they can have sex with younger men and women, men and women under the age of 18. I personally feel that many of these states that have laws saying that under 18 to have sex is OK, Is setting a person up for a lifetime of pain and mysery and depression. We already see that when a person feels unattractive they turn to sex for a way out, rather is with a trucker from down the street. or prositituting themselves on the streets in the big city. I mean would you want your kids being targeted by people who check for these things on the internet? To check to see where they can find some "Young meat to take?"
You website in the long run isn't helping people, it's just a lawbook for defending the perverted. I feel that maybe you should create a site focus on preparing people for the pros and cons of sex and not preparing minors to have sex with older men and women.
Jay

[AntiGuv]

The same could be said for straight pedophiles. So, what's your/his point? Otherwise, I haven't viewed anything else on that particular site, since my only interest was finding a chart of which states & nations have disparate age-of-consent laws.

If you are attempting to get me to concede that some individuals [of whatever sexuality] would have an interest in age-of-consent laws because of pedophilic motivations, I have no doubt of that, nor did I intend to suggest otherwise. If you wish me to accept that this is the driving force behind those organizations which have advocated equalized age-of-consent laws (such as the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, Amnesty International, the Human Rights Campaign, and the International Lesbian & Gay Association) then I will not because I do not believe that, nor will I.

[AntiGuv]

Might I also add that I have no particular reason to believe that the individual who sent that email is either gay or a democrat - although one or both is a possibility. I do however have strong reason to believe that the webmasters of that site are not so threatened by the insinuation that they would not make the email available on their servers..